Re: Content in RDF status

This is very helpful, thank you Stian!

On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:39 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes <
soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:

> > 7. The specification re-uses the cnt and trig namespaces. But these are
> not stable proposals, I fear.
> > Is anyone still working on the CNT working draft? What will be the
> status of TriG after the RDF Working Group publishes new material for Named
> Graphs?
>
> I emailed the Shadi Abou-Zahra from the Evaluation and Repair Tools
> Working Group (ERT WG) [2] , who conforms that the Content in RDF [3]
> is a stable proposal with only a few minor outstanding issues, but is
> not currently on the REC track as they are focusing on doing this for
> their main specification EARL [1]. They welcome any comments on the
> specifications.
>
> I've let him know that we would consider it useful to have
> Content-in-RDF on the REC track as well. Their WG has also developed
> the HTTP in RDF working draft [1] which I think could be useful for us
> to specify HTTP accept headers etc slightly structured, rather than
> the current opaque rdf:value blurb in oa:HttpRequestState.
>
> For reference, you may find extracts from our email exchange below.
>
>
> [0] http://www.w3.org/TR/EARL10-Schema/
> [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/HTTP-in-RDF10/
> [2] http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/
> [3] http://www.w3.org/TR/Content-in-RDF10/
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 11:02 PM, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:
> > (..)
> > Content-in-RDF is mostly up-to-date, we only received a few comments
> most of
> > which are resolved and that can be addressed quite quickly:
> >  - <http://www.w3.org/WAI/ER/Content/issues>
> > (..)
>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
> <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> > (..)
> > In our view it would be very desirable to have ContentInRDF on the REC
> > track, as it is a very useful vocabulary in many contexts, independent of
> > the EARL work, which is a bit more orthogonal to our annotations work.
> > (..)
>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:44 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
> <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Thanks for the update.
> > No, it was just a general concern from some of our members in referring
> to a
> > working draft that at first glance could seem abandoned. Content in RDF
> fits
> > our needs quite nicely to allow inline annotation bodies, and we attach
> also
> > dc:format to describe mime type, and type it using DCMI typed to in a
> more
> > abstract way know if it is text, image, etc.
> > (..)
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 8:54 AM, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:
> > I can see your concern, we have been kind of stuck with the test suites
> > development that is blocking progress of the entire EARL suite. But I
> > confirm that this is not abandoned work and that, according to the list
> of
> > issues I previously sent you, Content-in-RDF seems fairly stable.
> >
> > Aside, there were comments requesting Content-in-RDF and other support
> notes
> > for EARL to become REC-track documents. This would make them more stable
> but
> > would need much more effort for documenting test suites and
> implementations
> > to finalize. The current group decision is not to make that move, so we
> > could consider finalizing these support notes as only the EARL 1.0 Schema
> > document itself is on REC-track. Thoughts on this?
>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 9:25 AM, Stian Soiland-Reyes
> <soiland-reyes@cs.manchester.ac.uk> wrote:
> > Thanks for your reply.
> > In our view it would be very desirable to have ContentInRDF on the REC
> > track, as it is a very useful vocabulary in many contexts, independent of
> > the EARL work, which is a bit more orthogonal to our annotations work.
> >
> > We are probably also interested in the HTTP in RDF vocabulary as we
> annotate
> > specific resources with Accept headers, etc, but don't want to go to
> > verbose, perhaps limit ourselves to http:fieldName and http:fieldValue.
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 9, 2013 at 12:34 PM, Shadi Abou-Zahra <shadi@w3.org> wrote:
> > (..)
> > As said, ERT WG took a provisional step not to take these documents to
> > REC-track as they are really only supporting documents ("extensions") for
> > the core EARL vocabulary. This is primarily due to the fact that
> currently
> > not very many web accessibility evaluation tools, which is our main
> focus of
> > work, support the extensions and we would have even more difficulty
> finding
> > and documenting test suites and implementations.
> >
> > Having said that, over time we have been seeing increased uptake of these
> > vocabulary extensions outside our direct area of work. If there is
> > sufficient use, especially readily available test suites and tool
> > implementations, then it may change the current position of ERT WG.
> >
> > This is obviously my perspective that would need ERT WG discussion.
> > (..)
>
>


-- 
Dr. Paolo Ciccarese
http://www.paolociccarese.info/
Biomedical Informatics Research & Development
Instructor of Neurology at Harvard Medical School
Assistant in Neuroscience at Mass General Hospital
+1-857-366-1524 (mobile)   +1-617-768-8744 (office)

CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This message is intended only for the addressee(s),
may contain information that is considered
to be sensitive or confidential and may not be forwarded or disclosed to
any other party without the permission of the sender.
If you have received this message in error, please notify the sender
immediately.